Just looked it up and the entire first page of searches is about how ‘guys’ is masculine and insensitive to women. I disagree. I think the masculinization of the term is like an unneeded extra filter placed over ‘guy’ but the term itself is innocent. Guy Fawkes was a real person. He did something that caused him to be a symbol of the common person. There is nothing gendered about that. It’s the patriarchal culture that then assumed ‘common person’ refers to males. When I think of Guy Fawkes, it is his actions, not what’s in his pants, that is important. So, while there are many needlessly sexist and sexual phrases in English, I do not view ''Guy" as one of them and, instead, view it as a victim of the patriarchy just like you and me. It isn’t an inappropriate phrase to change or remove, it’s one to reclaim for all people; which is exactly in the spirit of the symbol of who Guy Fawkes is.

  • username@lemm.eeEnglish
    103·
    5 days ago

    At the end of the day, we use language to communicate ideas to other people. So imo you should just use another word, because if a majority of people think that “guys” is not gender neutral, even though you think it is, the best thing for others to understand you better is still to use what others would consider a gender-neutral word.

    Don’t focus too much on language itself, put your focus on letting others understand you. If people are bothered by a word, just use another one, unless that word is actually necessary for what you want to communicate.